Nadav Na’aman, «The Israelite-Judahite Struggle for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel», Vol. 91 (2010) 1-23
The article addresses the controversial issue of the formation of "biblical Israel" in biblical historiography. It begins by presenting the political-cultural struggle between Assyria and Babylonia in the second and first millennia BCE, in part over
the question of ownership of the cultural patrimony of ancient Mesopotamia. It goes on to examine relations between Judah and Israel and compares them to those between Assyria and Babylonia. It then suggests that the adoption of the Israelite
identity by Judah, which took place during the reign of Josiah as part in his cultic reform, was motivated by the desire to take possession of the highly prestigious heritage of Israel, which had remained vacant since that kingdom’s annexation by
Assyria in 720 BCE.
20 NADAV NA’AMAN
according to which Bethel was included in the district list of
Judah 45. It also ignores the inclusion of Bethel in the exilic and post-
exilic province of Yehud and the inclusion of its inhabitants in the
List of Returnees from Babylonia. Van Seters also overlooks the
obvious possibility that the old account of the conquest of Bethel by
Josiah may have served as the historical core around which the late
story in 1 Kings 13 was formed. I can see no alternative to the
conclusion that Bethel and its district were indeed conquered by
Josiah and annexed to his kingdom, and that the king’s operations in
the district of Samerina were the reason for his execution by the
Egyptians at Megiddo (2 Kgs 23,29).
Following the Assyrian withdrawal from Palestine and the new
political opportunities opened up before the Kingdom of Judah,
Josiah expanded northward and conquered several Israelite
territories, conducted cult reform in his kingdom, and eliminated
what was considered an “Assyrian†cult — namely, one that
contemporaries associated with the Assyrian empire 46. The creation
of a new ethnic-religious-cultural identity for the inhabitants of
Judah fits in well the objects of the reform. Thus, the appropriation
of the patrimony of the former Kingdom of Israel as part of the
formation of a new identity might be regarded as an integral part of
the reform. To gain control of the Israelite heritage, Josiah may have
plundered scrolls deposited in the temple of Bethel, just as Tukulti-
Ninurta I and Ashurbanipal seized the scholarly tablets of Babylon.
This may explain how the scrolls of Amos and Hosea, as well as
historiographical works such as the story cycle of Jacob, the pre-
Deuteronomistic “Book of Savioursâ€, and a number of prophetic
stories may have reached the court of Jerusalem. These works,
which originally used the name “Israel†to refer only to the
Northern Kingdom, were later reworked and incorporated into the
histories composed by Judahite scribes, in which “Israel†appears in
its new ethnic-religious connotation.
The Exodus is one Israelite tradition that seems to have been of
central importance only in the Northern Kingdom. This is indicated
by the fact that it features in the prophecies of Hosea and Amos, but
A. ALT, “Judas Gaue unter Josiaâ€, PJb 21 (1925) 100-116; NA’AMAN,
45
“ Kingdom of Judahâ€, 5-33.
NA’AMAN, “Cult Reformsâ€, 131-142, with earlier literature.
46
FOLLOW US